Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law describes search warrants and enumerates the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, without limitation, for property that was stolen or embezzled, or for property or things that were used to commit a felony.

Existing law authorizes a defendant to move for the return of property or to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure if the search or seizure was without a warrant and was unreasonable or, the search and seizure was with a warrant and certain criteria apply. Existing law provides for a hearing on the defendants motion where the court receives evidence and determines whether the evidence is inadmissible at any trial or other hearing, except as specified, or returns the property.

This bill would allow a search warrant for stolen or embezzled property currency, as specified, to include an order for such property currency to be returned to a lawful owner identified in the warrant pursuant to specified procedures including a hearing, if requested, to determine that the property currency was stolen or embezzled, before it is returned to its owner. The bill would require an independent hearing, where the agency seizing the property currency would have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property currency was stolen or embezzled. The bill would require the agency seizing the property, no less than 10 days before returning the currency to the lawful owner, to notify the prosecuting authority in the jurisdiction where the embezzlement or theft may reasonably be prosecuted.

Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law describes search warrants and enumerates the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, without limitation, for property that was stolen or embezzled, or for property or things that were used to commit a felony.

Existing law authorizes a defendant to move for the return of property or to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a search and seizure if the search or seizure was without a warrant and was unreasonable or, the search and seizure was with a warrant and certain criteria apply. Existing law provides for a hearing on the defendants motion where the court receives evidence and determines whether the evidence is inadmissible at any trial or other hearing, except as specified, or returns the property.

This bill would allow a search warrant for stolen or embezzled property to include an order for such property to be returned to a lawful owner identified in the warrant pursuant to specified procedures including a hearing, if requested, to determine that the property was stolen or embezzled, before it is returned to its owner. The bill would require an independent hearing, where the agency seizing the property would have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property was stolen or embezzled.

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1118

Author:(Chen) – As Amended Ver:March 27, 2025

SUMMARY:

Authorizes a search warrant for stolen or embezzled currency, including fiat currency or crypto currency, to include an order for such currency to be returned to a lawful owner identified in the warrant, as specified, and if requested, to determine that the currency was stolen or embezzled, before it is returned to its owner. Specifically, this bill:

1. States a warrant authorizing the seizure of currency, that was stolen or embezzled, may also require it to be returned to a lawful owner, as identified in the warrant, if the warrant also includes all of the following requirements:
   
   1. A requirement that the person from whom the currency is taken, or their legal representative, be served with a copy of the warrant, either by personal service or by other means reasonably calculated to ensure notice;
      
   2. A notice that the person from whom the currency is taken may, within 30 days after service, file a petition with the issuing court for a hearing and provide notice to the law enforcement agency that seized the property; at the hearing, the agency seizing the currency shall bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the currency seized was stolen or embezzled; and,
      
   3. A requirement that the stolen or embezzled currency not be returned to a lawful owner until after it has been determined to be stolen or embezzled at the hearing or, if no hearing is requested, 31 days after service of the notice.
      
2. States a warrant issued authorizing the return of stolen or embezzled currency does not affect the court’s discretion to suppress or return evidence in accordance with existing law on the suppression of evidence seized in violation of state and federal law.
   
3. Requires that, no less than 10 days before returning any currency, the agency seizing the currency must notify the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the offense described in the warrant may reasonably be prosecuted.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a “search warrant” as a written order in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate and directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property. (Pen. Code, § 1523.)
   
2. Provides grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued to include when the property was stolen or embezzled. (Pen. Code, § 1524, subd. (a).)
   
3. Provides that a search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing or things and the place to be searched. (Pen. Code, § 1525.)
   
4. Requires a magistrate to issue a search warrant if they are satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application or that there is probable cause to believe their existence. (Pen. Code, § 1528, subd. (a).)
   
5. Allows someone whose property is illegally seized, either as alternative to, or in conjunction with a motion to suppress, move for its return. If it appears the property taken is not the same as that described in the warrant, or that there is no probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued, the magistrate must cause it to be restored to the person from whom it was taken. (Pen. Code, § 1540.)
   
6. Provides that “if a search or seizure motion is granted . . . the property shall be returned . . . unless it is otherwise subject to lawful detention.” (Pen. Code, § 1528, subd. (e).)
   
7. Provides that, on the application of the owner and on satisfactory proof of his ownership of the property, after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard has been given to the person from whom custody of the property was taken and any other person as required by the magistrate, the magistrate before whom the complaint is laid, or who examines the charge against the person accused of stealing or embezzling it, shall order it to be delivered, without prejudice to the state, to the owner, on his paying the necessary expenses incurred in its preservation, to be certified by the magistrate. The order entitles the owner to demand and receive the property. (Pen. Code, § 1408.)
   
8. Provides that, if property stolen or embezzled comes into the custody of the magistrate, it shall be delivered, without prejudice to the state, to the owner upon his application to the court and on satisfactory proof of his title, after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard has been given to the person from whom custody of the property was taken and any other person as required by the magistrate, and on his paying the necessary expenses incurred in its preservation, to be certified by the magistrate. (Pen. Code, § 1409.)
   
9. Provides that, if the property stolen or embezzled has not been delivered to the owner, the court before which a trial is held for stealing or embezzling it, upon the application of the owner to the court and on proof of his title, after reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard has been given to the person from whom custody of the property was taken and any other person as required by the court, may order it to be restored to the owner without prejudice to the state. (Pen. Code, § 1410.)
   
10. Provides for the disposition of evidence in criminal cases, including the procedure for disposition of exhibits of stolen or embezzled property after the final determination of a criminal proceeding. (Pen. Code, §§ 1417-1419.)
    
11. Presumes the things a person possesses are owned by them. (Evid. Code, § 637.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 1118 will create a path forward for victims of financial cybercrimes. Financial fraud can be truly devastating for individuals and businesses, particularly elderly individuals and small businesses that do not have the extensive resources to hire an attorney or have in-house counsel. These groups are extremely vulnerable to this type of crime. What originally starts as an individual paying what is owed to a trusted source can become a year-long process to regain access to the money, while the original payment is still due. The process then turns into petitioning in civil court to get their money back, even though a crime against this individual has been committed. The author and sponsor's goal with this bill is to create a system and tools that can return money to victims in a timely manner while due process is being served.”

The author further explains, “This bill will create a pathway for victims of financial fraud to recover stolen funds within an appropriate time frame. The bill would add a provision in Section 1524 of the Penal Code to include, in a warrant, the ability to petition the court for the return of assets to the rightful owner in criminal court. After petitioning the court. Currently the deficiency of the systems is that most times these fraudulent cases stem from an individual unknowing providing access to their systems as a result of a phishing scam. Once a perpetrator has access they are able to steal information and redirect funds to an account controlled by the perpetrator. Thankfully, under current law, before most of these charges can be processed law enforcement can step in and freeze the transaction. The issue is that once these funds are frozen it is difficult to identify the true suspect and there is no expedient way for the victims to petition for the return of the funds in criminal court.

“This bill isn’t creating new criminal charges; instead, it is providing law enforcement with the tools to return the money to the rightful owner while due process is being served. The Orange County Sheriff's Office shared this story of a local church as one of the examples when they encountered this issue.

“In March of 2021 an accounting manager from an Orange County church transferred close to $30,000 to a bank account listed on a fraudulent e-mail that appeared to be sent by a contractor the church was doing business with at the time. The e-mail requested the funds owed to the contractor be wired to a bank account. Regrettably, the accounting manager wired the funds, only to later discover the e-mail was fraudulent. The church contacted the Sheriff’s department for help. Cybercrime investigators determined the funds were transferred to a bank account that was already under investigation by the bank itself for fraud and were able to freeze the funds by obtaining a search warrant signed by a judge in order to prevent the criminal from taking the funds.

“When investigators attempted to make contact with the subject registered to the account where the church’s funds were transferred, the subject unsurprisingly was not willing to speak with law enforcement. The individual had an address near the Dallas-metro area, but even Texas authorities were unsuccessful in their attempts to contact the subject as well. In an effort to get the funds back to the victim our investigators requested a judge seize the funds and return them to the church. Citing a lack of legal process outlined by law to take back the funds and return them to the victim, the judge was unable to take action. As a result, over a year later $30,000 of the church’s funds still sat frozen in a fraudulent account.

“Another example is a case that occurred in October 2022. An Orange County victim reported his company lost approximately $63,000 due to a business email compromise. Investigators were successful in locating $41,000 of the funds that had been transferred by a scammer into another bank account. Even after locating this money, serving a search warrant to the bank, and freezing the funds, investigators have been unable to contact the owner of the account where the stolen funds are located. The money is essentially stuck in limbo at the bank and the victim has yet to receive their money due to the lack of clarity in the legal system.”

1. Fourth Amendment Generally: The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Section 13, Article I of the California Constitution mirrors the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. To that end, an officer generally must secure a warrant before conducting a search of private property. Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. The prosecution bears the burden of proving the applicability of an exception.” (In re Randy C. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 933, 937.)

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and also extends to a reasonable expectation of privacy. “When an individual seeks to preserve something as private, and their expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable, we have held that official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies as a search and requires a warrant supported by probable cause.” (Carpenter v. United States (2018) 585 U.S. 296, 304.) States are required to comply with the Fourth Amendment and cannot simply legislate around it.

California law cannot exempt the City from complying with the Fourth Amendment. State law might require the City to hold [the defendant’s] [property], but that ‘does not, in and of itself, determine the reasonableness of the seizure under the Fourth Amendment.’ The federal Fourth Amendment requires the City to return the [property], and that supersedes any contrary requirements in California law. (See id. Brandstetter v. City of Riverside (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 506, at *8, citing Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 U.S. 40, 61; Miranda v. City of Cornelius (9th Cir. 2005) 429 F.3d 858, 864-65.)

Therefore, courts examining the reasonableness of a search must consider not just California law, but also the limits of the Fourth Amendment. California, for instance, may not enact a statute that states law enforcement may abandon the search warrant requirements or require improper seizure of property without probable cause because the Fourth Amendment does not allow for that.

1. Seizure of Stolen or Embezzled Property: This bill allows a court, when issuing a search warrant, to require any alleged stolen or embezzled currency, including cryptocurrency, to be returned to the alleged lawful owner. A search warrant is a warrant signed by a judge or magistrate authorizing a law enforcement officer to conduct a search on a certain person, a specified place, or an automobile for criminal evidence.

A search warrant is ordinarily a prerequisite to a search, which is designed to protect individuals’ reasonable expectation of privacy against unreasonable governmental physical trespass or other intrusion. (See Pen. Code, § 1523.) Penal Code section 1407 states that when property is alleged to have been stolen or embezzled, law enforcement must retain custody of that property pending the disposition of any court proceedings. The alleged owner, assuming the owner can prove they are the owner, and after providing reasonable notice to any other alleged owner, may obtain an order from a court returning the property. (See Pen. Code, § 1408.)

However, that may not occur until after sufficient due process. (Modern Loan Co. v. Police Court of San Francisco (1910) 12 Cal.App. 582, 583 [“One who is in possession of property under a claim of right cannot be deprived of its possession without due process of law; and in order to constitute due process of law, there must be notice of the time and place of hearing and an opportunity to be heard.”].) In some cases, the criminal defendant, who may be the subject of the search warrant, has a claim of ownership over the property; therefore, requiring the defendant’s case be resolved before property may be returned.

When property is not alleged to have been stolen or embezzled by a person, but rather is just “property stolen or embezzled,” in the possession of law enforcement or the court, Penal Code sections 1409-1411 provides that the magistrate who has custody of the property “shall order it delivered to the owner upon satisfactory proof of ownership, and when reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard have been given to the person from whom the property was taken.” (People v. Superior Court (McGraw) (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 154, 156 [holding the property was presumed to be owned by the real parties (the county) until the state had presented evidence that would support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was stolen.].)

Additionally, a search warrant requires probable cause that identifies or describes the person to be searched or property to be seized, and the facts supporting an underlying crime. (Pen. Code, § 1525.) If the DA has no jurisdiction or intention to prosecute a person or organization for theft of money or cryptocurrency, it begs the question: how is law enforcement obtaining a warrant? If a criminal prosecution will not result from the outset, it would seem a person is left only with civil remedies to recover any lost funds.

1. Due Process: According to materials provided by the author, the intent of this bill is return allegedly stolen funds when the district attorney has no jurisdiction to file charges because the alleged scammer is out of jurisdiction. However, return of seized property where the seizure is effected by law enforcement still implicates due process concerns. The author states that this issue “lacks clarity” resulting in seized assets languishing in the hands of third parties who may not have committed any crime.

However, the court in Ensoniq Corp. v. Superior Court (John Datorro) (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1537, acknowledged the lack of clarity in Penal Code sections 1408-1411 and stated,

“However, as the court noted in McGraw, section 1411 is silent as to the appropriate procedure to follow in making the initial determination as to whether property seized under a search warrant is in fact stolen, when there is no conviction of theft and no criminal charge pending. (100 Cal. App. 3d at p. 159.) Sections 1408-1410 are likewise silent as to how the property is to be deemed stolen or embezzled absent a charge or conviction.

We find that due process requires the People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized property was stolen or embezzled, in a situation where no charges are pending and no conviction has been obtained. Although it may be suspected that the seized property was stolen, that fact must be proven by due process of law. (See People v. Lawrence (1956) 140 Cal. App. 2d 133, 138.) Evidence Code section 637 provides that the ‘things which a person possesses are presumed to be owned by him.’ ” (Internal citation omitted.) Thus, with regard to a determination of theft under section 1411, the court in McGraw concluded that ‘. . . the subject property is presumed to be owned by the [persons from whom the property was seized] until the state has presented evidence which would support a finding that they did not in fact own the property. The People would be required to prove the property was stolen by a preponderance of the evidence, as in all determinations of ownership. . . . In the event the People fail in their burden of proving the property to be stolen, then the property must be returned to [the persons from whom the property was seized]” (Ensoniq, supra, citing People v. Superior Court (McGraw) (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 154.)

Although this bill contemplates due process by providing for a hearing with a preponderance standard, the onus is still on the person contesting the seizure of the property. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head in that it requires a person in possession of the currency or cryptocurrency to prove they are the rightful holder or suffer loss of the assets. If the alleged holder of the assets does not move quickly to retain counsel and dispute the warrant, presumably, they are just out luck. While the losses suffered by the victims in these cases are indeed devastating, protections against government overreach, particularly in the cryptocurrency space, are equally important.^[1]

1. Argument in Support: According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department: “Financial fraud and cybercrime pose an increasing risk to California residents. According to the FBI, nationwide there was $12.5 billion in reported losses to cybercriminals in 2023. California accounted for $2.1 billion of that reported loss. When cybercrime occurs it can be financially devastating to victims. If funds are recovered it is imperative that the victims have the ability to reclaim these funds as quickly as possible. Under the structure of current law, it can take several months or even years to return funds to victims.

“Your bill will enable victims of cybercrimes or financial fraud to recover stolen funds in a timely manner. An example of the need for this bill is demonstrated by a recent case investigated by my department. In October 2022 a victim reported his company lost approximately $63,000 due to a business email compromise. Investigators were successful in locating $41,000 of the funds that had been transferred by a scammer into another bank account. Even after locating this money, serving a search warrant to the bank, and freezing the funds, investigators have been unable to contact the owner of the account where the stolen funds are located. The money is essentially stuck in limbo at the bank and the victim has yet to receive their money due to the lack of clarity in the legal system. Unfortunately this is not a unique occurrence and residents across our state have experienced similar challenges in recovering their funds.

“By providing additional clarity to warrant and seizure language, the bill establishes provisions in the law that make clear the authority and procedure for due process to facilitate the returning of funds to the victims of cybercrimes. In addition to helping victims, this bill will begin to put California on the right footing to address what is becoming one of the most prevalent forms of danger to our economy and infrastructure. Fully addressing this threat requires bills like AB 1118 that fixes insufficiencies in the law used by cyber criminals to their advantage.”

1. Argument in Opposition: According to Felony Murder Elimination Project: “Felony Murder Elimination Project is a nonprofit organization whose goal is the elimination of California’s felony murder rule and special circumstances law. We strive not only to bring an end to these laws but to create pathways for relief for those who are serving severe and manifestly disproportionate sentences by their use. For these reasons, we oppose AB 1118 because it undermines due process by allowing property confiscation without conviction, disproportionately harms marginalized communities, and contradicts California’s efforts toward fair and just criminal legal reforms.

“AB 1118 disregards constitutional due process rights. Ever since the broad bipartisan effort that enacted SB 443 (Mitchell & Hadley, 2016), California has generally required a person to be convicted of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof in the law, before their property can be forfeited to the State.^[2] Despite the consensus support for SB 443, AB 1118 goes the complete opposite direction. In situations where a person cannot afford to appear at the hearing within the 30-day window the bill provides, the State could give a person’s property away based solely on a warrant supported by probable cause – one of the lowest standards in the law. Even if the person has the resources and time to contest the confiscation of their property, they still risk unnecessarily losing their property as the State need only prove by a preponderance (more likely than not) that the property was wrongfully acquired. In either situation, a person can have their property taken from them without ever being convicted of a theft crime. Indeed, AB 1118 would authorize the State to take a person’s property without ever even charging them with a crime. This bill is fundamentally unjust.

“Moreover, AB 1118 would unnecessarily complicate criminal proceedings. The constitution requires that both the defendant and the State have ample opportunity to examine crucial evidence in a criminal proceeding. Yet, if the State follows the bill’s expedited hearing timeline to take a person’s property and gives it to another individual before the separate theft trial concludes, how does either side access the core evidence of the case or ensure it is not tampered with? On a separate note, if the person is found innocent at the trial, how do they recover their property? Likewise, it is unclear how a defendant would get their property back if they prove the underlying warrant was improper.

“The current process for return of property in such cases operates under Penal Code Section 1538.5’s inherent assumption that the entity that improperly seized the property still has possession of it. What happens when that property is given to third party? What happens if that third party sells it to another person before the original owner can challenge the underlying warrant? In addition to infringing on people’s rights, AB 1118 would clog our courts and use up public defenders’ precious time with litigation to resolve these questions.

Just as the bill is detrimental to court and attorneys’ resources, it is also detrimental to law enforcement.

“First, the bill will waste police officer’s time on fishing expeditions for property, even if there is no chance that the items will be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. Further, the bill will break down trust between law enforcement and the communities they are sworn to protect. AB 1118 asks law enforcement to confront vulnerable Californians to take their property, with little justification, and give it to someone else. This is a recipe for disaster – any tense police interaction has the chance to escalate into a fatal incident. We should not require police to engage in activities that unnecessarily risk the safety of community members.

“AB 1118’s scheme is also ripe for abuse by bad actors, incentivizing people with resources to use the bill’s unforgiving 30-day window to extract property from vulnerable Californians. For example, imagine that a landlord who lives in a building they own discovers that their tenant down the hall has a nice TV.

“The landlord seeks a warrant claiming that the tenant stole the TV from them. The police then serve the warrant and confiscate the TV. If the tenant does not have the resources to navigate the hearing process or cannot afford to get into a dispute with the person who controls their residence, AB 1118 would reward the landlord with a new TV on the 31^st day. Likewise, the bill opens the door to abusive partners and ex-partners using the process to harass victims and take their property. The Legislature should not approve this problematic scheme.

“Lastly, it is important to note that despite law enforcement narratives, property crime is near all-time lows in California according to the state’s Department of Justice and the FBI.^[3] Moreover, FBI data from 49 California cities demonstrates that in 2024 property crime, larceny, and burglary were down compared to 2022 levels by 21.5%, 16.7%, and 13.9%, respectively.^[4] The Legislature’s policy debates must be guided by these facts.”

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 358 (Alvarez), would authorize law enforcement to access electronic device information without a warrant if, with specific consent, an individual locates a tracking or surveillance device within their residence, automobile, or personal property, and the device is reasonably believed to have been used for the purpose of recording or tracking the individual without their permission. AB 358 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 1063 (Dixon), would authorize the Department of Public Health to release a physical blood test taken from a newborn to law enforcement in response to a search warrant only if the objective of the warrant is to obtain the DNA of a missing person suspected to be a victim of homicide, child abuse resulting in death, or manslaughter in order to compare the DNA to other samples in the Department of Justice Missing Persons DNA Database and to upload the sample for future identification of the person. AB 1063 is pending hearing in the Health Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2419 (Gipson), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have expanded the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued to include when the property or things to be seized consist of evidence that tend to show the crime of communications in furtherance of a solicitation of a minor, as specified, has occurred or is occurring. AB 2419 was referred to, but never heard in, the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
      
   2. AB 2603 (Low), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, would have authorized issuance of a search warrant on the grounds that the property or things to be seized consists of evidence that tends to show that certain misdemeanor hate crimes have occurred. AB 2603 was referred to, but never heard in, this committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California District Attorneys Association
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Orange County Business Council
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Oppose

ACLU California Action
All of Us or None (HQ)
California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Felony Murder Elimination Project
Initiate Justice
Justice2jobs Coalition
LA Defensa
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
San Francisco Public Defender
Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition
Universidad Popular

Analysis Prepared by:

Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. Case law on the application of property rights in cryptocurrency is in its infancy, but Justice Gorsuch in his dissent in Carpenter v. United States (2018) 585 U.S. 296 supports the idea that crypto accounts and records of crypto accounts are property subject to protection by the Fourth Amendment. Carpenter related to cellphone data, but Gorsuch generally alleged that a person may have a property interest in crypto market documents. (Cf Harper v. Werfel (1st Cir. 2024) 118 F.4th 100, 111 [“customers have substantial legal interests in [CSLI], including at least some right to include, exclude, and control its use," that "might even rise to the level of a property right”, but adding that the defendant "offered no analysis . . . of what rights state law might provide him.]") ↑

2. SB 443 (Mitchell & Hadley, 2016) received a vote of 69-7 on the Assembly Floor and 39-0 on the Senate Floor. ↑

3. Mike Males, New FBI Data: California’s Crime Rate is at Record Lows, Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice (October 16, 2024). ↑

4. Id. ↑